Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

Well, it seems you are really getting desperate.

The overarching point was the biblical account of creation is flawed.

I was already aware that light existed before the creation of suns, but you and I both know that's not what was meant.

How about the concept of creating vegetation before the moon, sun?.

This one I can't wait to hear, keep on coming kid - some day you will have a decent reply (I hope).

So in summary you can't concede you was wrong and being quite hypocritical. Nowhere do I say the ordering as detailed in Genesis is correct - I personally think the ordering is wrong but we can hardly fault people all those years ago when even today someone as "learned" as you can't get it right.

Oh and stop calling me kid - it's patronising and rather rude when I am 11 years older than you. Which I am sure is your intention. Maybe with a little more life experience and a little less anger you too could realise there is no shame in admitting you made an error especially to a complete stranger.
 
I think it's more likely you are schizophrenic than that you felt gods presence.

We already know the human mind is prone to hearing/seeing things, or a total breakdown.

We could objectively prove that.

You know that half the world belongs to one of the three Abrahamic faiths? From my own experience I don't know a single person of faith who hasn't felt God's presence at some point in their life. I would say that is likely that a very substantial number of them have felt God. I would hazard a guess that pretty much everyone who believes in God will feel him at some point in their lives.

Maybe by your logic the world is overrun with people suffering from schizophrenia.
 
There has been some interesting studies, but not much can. Be gained from them, other than its interesting.
One, as posted many times is the god helmet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Persinger claims that this pattern of stimulation can temporarily alter some of the brain activity critical for maintenance of the normal sense of self. It is supposed that during right temporal lobe stimulation the right hemisphere becomes more active, including the more sensitive structures in the limbic system. As this happens, the left side of the brain makes fewer contributions to the subject's state of consciousness. The resulting state of consciousness is less verbal, and in some cases, more apprehensive, even fearful.[32] In one case this stimulation, applied alone, elicited the experience of a frightening ghost for a subject who had the experience previously[clarification needed].[21]
When both lobes are stimulated, Persinger claims, the left side of the brain responds with a burst of activity, and it's at this point that a visitor experience is most likely to appear. In a few oft-mentioned cases from Persinger's lab, the visitor experience has been one of God, but much more often, it's a simple sense of a presence, or a vision of an angel, a deceased being known to the subject, or a group of beings of some kind. A feeling of meaningfulness can occur as the left limbic system is abruptly activated by the change in the stimulation,[22] so that the subject might feel it "means something", infusing the experience with a sense of importance. This kind of meaningfulness is a component of what Persinger calls "The God Experience".[33] The transient above-normal left hemispheric activity also enhances positive affect,[34] a term that embraces bliss and ecstasy, one of the most common features of the "God Experience".
 
You have some sort of proof to back up your claim that when I have felt God's presence I would show "the same EEG waveform changes for a schizophrenic patient suffering delusions or a child with clinically diagnosed ADHD."?

Not for you personally but if you have an access to journals I can give the keywords to search for in tests for religious experience, ADHD and schizophrenia/

The keywords you require are: EEG, theta/beta ratio, delta/beta ratio then naturally ADHD, schizophrenia and meditation/religious experience.

That should pull up sufficient reading for a few weeks. :D
 
Last edited:
There has been some interesting studies, but not much can. Be gained from them, other than its interesting.
One, as posted many times is the god helmet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Wiki said:
In December 2004 Nature reported that a group of Swedish researchers led by Pehr Granqvist, a psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, had attempted to replicate Persinger's experiments under double-blind conditions, and were not able to reproduce the effect.[8] The study was published in Neuroscience Letters in 2005.[7] Granqvist et al concluded that the presence or absence of the magnetic field had no relationship with any religious or spiritual experience reported by the participants, but was predicted entirely by their suggestibility and personality traits. Persinger, however, takes issue with the Swedish attempts to replicate his work. "They didn't replicate it, not even close," he says.[8] He argues that the Swedish group did not expose the subjects to magnetic fields for long enough to produce an effect. Dr. Granqvist, however replied that Dr. Persinger agreed to a 15 minute time period for PET study beforehand.[38] Persinger also stresses that many of his studies were indeed double blinded[39] The Swedish group disagree.[10]

It is an interesting curiosity piece....
 
Well, answering as a Catholic I am bound by dogma. However this piece here is worth a read and goes into some detail as to why the Church isn't sexist.

That article does not in any way answer the question as to why women cannot be priests. You have not stated why women cannot be priests. At no point have you been able to answer the question as to what makes a women unable to perform the duties of a priest.

But really the Church position is clear.

Women are unable to be priests.

Which is sexist. Because there is no solid reasoning for why women are unable to be priests especially when looking at so many other religions were they do quite admirably in the same role.

It doesn't teach that it doesn't want female priests - it simply teaches that they are not capable of being priests.

As a man I am not capable of bearing children - does that mean I am not equal to a woman?

The difference being I can give you a very solid reason as to why you are incapable of bearing children (you lack a womb and the other necessary plumbing) whilst you have so far been unable to do so for the question of why women are incapable of being priests.

I am not stopping you from living your life in any way that you so choose. It doesn't mean that contraception has a bearing on sexual equality. Your wife on the other hand as a Catholic should try to adhere to the teaching of the Church.

Worry not, she no longer uses contraception. Unless having sex with a man who has had a vasectomy is a sin? In which case, she sins on a regular basis. :D Whilst you may not be trying to stop me from living my life in any way that I choose your church most certainly is trying to stop others from living their lives in ways they choose.

I believe that, and I believe that people sin. I am not perfect by any stretch. I personally don't have too much of an issue with gay civil partnerships, I have a very strong objection to gay marriage.

So you honestly believe that the fact gay men (and women obviously) have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender makes the Catholic churches objections to gay marriage acceptable? Would the right to worship be OK if it only allowed Anglican Worship?

I believe that "the lobby" was pretty clear at the time. Certainly the Catholic Church believes that gay partnerships erode the value placed on the family.

Yeah, with absolutely no evidence for it.

The Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are wrong. Do you really expect them to endorse the adoption of a child by parents who are doing wrong? Really? You might not agree with them but at least understand them. They really can't take any other position.

Haven't you yourself said that all people sin? Surely then the Catholic Church will always be placing a child with parents that are doing wrong? Are you aware of what our care system is like (without going in to what the Catholic run care system in Ireland was like..)? Considerably more damage is likely to be done leaving a child in care than haivng them adopted by a gay couple.


I am not judging just stating fact. I am sure your wife is lovely and I am most certainly not judging her - that isn't my place.

How on earth is calling her a heretic not judging her? (Though to be fair, you alluded to any person believing that to be a heretic and I was the one that mentioned my wife...) :)

I am aware that there are members of the Catholic Church who would like to see women ordained. Those people are either (a) ignorant of their own religion or (b) heretics.

Or (c) Able to think critically for themselves and realise that sometimes the Catholic Church is not always doing things guided by god. Unless you think the selling of indulgences was also OK?

The Churches position is that women can not be priests - that is an infallible dogma. It can not be changed.

It changed it's mind on the status of married clergy at least once so far (and sort of a second time too). Seems that these things can be changed after all.

If your wife is aware of this and still rejects it then she is committing the sin of heresy. This is a very grave sin indeed and carries the sanction of excommunication. I don't want to sound too dramatic on this but essentially the Church has rules and if you want to stay in the Church you have to follow the rules. She is not bound to the Church and can follow the path to apostasy if she chooses.

I shall let her know, she can have a word with the priest and see what the process is. It is going to play havoc with school places though and the mother in law will probably blame me which will make Christmas Dinner akward.

Alternatively it could quite possibly be that questioning the chruch isn't grounds for excommunication any more? As long as my wife doesn't actually go and get ordained she hasn't really commited the sin of heresy.
 
Actually you're wrong.

See, I can do it too! :p

Now provide some meaning to it.
I have put reasoning to mine.

But I'll repeat, just because something isn't the simplist, doesn't mean that isn't the method.
Vpeven in science, from two competing theories that predict identical results. You choose the simplist. It has nothing to do with it being correct though.
 
Not for you personally but if you have an access to journals I can give the keywords to search for in tests for religious experience, ADHD and schizophrenia/

The keywords you require are: EEG, theta/beta ration, delta/beta ratio then naturally ADHD, schizophrenia and meditation/religious experience.

That should pull up sufficient reading for a few weeks. :D

I am afraid I no longer have access to any suitable journals. However I am familiar with where you are going with this and you are working from a logical fallacy.
 
I am afraid I no longer have access to any suitable journals. However I am familiar with where you are going with this and you are working from a logical fallacy.

I am not going anywhere with it. I am merely saying that in studies those ratios have been shown to be elevated in exactly the same way. Now whether people then want to attribute the experience you claim to have as being similar to a schizophrenic delusion then that is their business. I know what my personal view is but naturally I could nothing other than what I said - show similar waveform ratio. So there is no fallacy there.
 
You know that half the world belongs to one of the three Abrahamic faiths?

The most popular newspaper in the UK is the Sun, doesn't make it correct. :D

From my own experience I don't know a single person of faith who hasn't felt what they believe to be God's presence at some point in their life. I would guess that is likely that a very substantial number of them have felt what they believe to be God. I would hazard a guess that pretty much everyone who believes in God will feel what they believe to be him at some point in their lives.

Just clarified that with a few corrections that change the somewhat absolutist tone. ;D

It is quite possible that the feeling of God is actually something else we just haven't discovered yet. I also feel a little angry at God for not sharing this feeling with everyone, damn him! <shakes fist at god angrily>
 
It is quite possible that the feeling of God is actually something else we just haven't discovered yet. I also feel a little angry at God for not sharing this feeling with everyone, damn him! <shakes fist at god angrily>

perhaps others experience it as ghost, or put it down to the mind playing tricks.
 
Now provide some meaning to it.
I have put reasoning to mine.

But I'll repeat, just because something isn't the simplist, doesn't mean that isn't the method.
Vpeven in science, from two competing theories that predict identical results. You choose the simplist. It has nothing to do with it being correct though.

I have already explained myself. I don't disagree that just because something isn't the simplest it doesn't mean that isn't the method. But that doesn't mean I can't reject things that aren't falsifiable in favour of things are, especially when they don't need faith based tinkering.
 
I have already explained myself. I don't disagree that just because something isn't the simplest it doesn't mean that isn't the method. But that doesn't mean I can't reject things that aren't falsifiable in favour of things are, especially when they don't need faith based tinkering.

That's changing what you said slightly. Thats nothing more than a personal belief and has nothing to do with science and religion being incompatible.
Why does it need to be the simplist method to be compatible. Is that not what you said?
 
That's changing what you said slightly. Thats nothing more than a personal belief and has nothing to do with science and religion being incompatible.
Errr, surely this is all personal belief as to whether it is compatible or not! I'll happily agree to that notion :p

Why does it need to be the simplist method to be compatible. Is that not what you said?
I'm afraid I'm not really following you on this.
 
Basically you said religion was incompatible with science.

Now you seem to be agreeing that after all it is and that it's just a personal belief that god doesnt tamper with evolution.
 
No, I do question my existence and the meaning of life etc. But I don't question that evolution is (most probably) not influenced by god.

Fair enough. It's just most people don't then accept by acknowledging anything else they are taking a massive leap of faith but then have the gall to attack religion for the very same thing. For what it's worth my position is not dissimilar to yours I do however view the militant religion attackers and scientific evangelists in the same way I view all fundamentalists. I would argue though that a clever designer would implement such a system that required no input or interaction - not that that is claimed to be in this case (or this stupid model I have just compiled).
 
Back
Top Bottom